Digital BW, The Print

As technical editor of a trade magazine, I must understand what goes on 
in the world of photography to a much higher level than my readers 
require. As a working photographer, I have tried to "retire" from 
endless testing to get to the truth, event though that is impossible. I 
have, however, in my 20 years of digital output (11 years digital input 
with some film overlap), managed to sell over 500,000 digital prints in 
the event world.

Since I still do personal work in B&W, and as a former "zoner," I can 
appreciate the work of Clayton, with his use of RELATIVE rating. 
Empirical testing of only 2 components, with a VERY useful conclusion. 
One can readily make some informed decisions about substantial paper 
batch investments (financial committment) from a guy who can "hang them 
on the wall,' as opposed to a meter reader. To that I say:  nice work.

While I see both sides of the argument, I don't see where the more 
ABSOLUTE and repeatable rating system would increase the immediate 
usefulness of Clayton's rating system.

I own a spectro, but I can plainly see the difference in relative 
blackness of different papers using my eyes, the ultimate comparator 
(but terrible quatifier). My customers couldn't care less about Dmax 
since they don't know what it is.

Claude Jodoin

Hello Claude,

>Since I still do personal work in B&W, and as a former "zoner," 
>I can appreciate the work of Clayton, with his use of RELATIVE 
>rating. Empirical testing of only 2 components, with a VERY useful 
>conclusion. One can readily make some informed decisions about 
>substantial paper batch investments (financial committment) from a 
>guy who can "hang them on the wall,' as opposed to a meter reader. 
>To that I say:  nice work.

Thank you.  It's nice to have a confirmation from someone who
understands.  In my last posts on this issue I struggled to find the
right words to describe the purpose, or need, that the review attempts
to serve, and did not feel I succeeded.  It was very frustrating.  You
have, in a few concise sentences, nailed it perfectly.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton,

Thank you for the many contributions you've made to advance digital 
art printing.  I want you to know I support your test methods and 
have personally seen the quality of the results.  Nothing attests 
more to the validity of what you are doing than the result itself.  
A few months ago I purchased a 5x7 of your church interior print to 
serve as an example of what I can do if I get my processes down.  
That print is absolutely fantastic!  I was expecting something nice, 
but not that nice.

Steve has gone past the point of a respectful, intellectual 
discussion and resorted to sarcasm in an attempt to establish his 
approach as superior.  Anyone receiving that type of response to an 
honest, open statement can be discouraged and wonder whether its 
worth the risk to continue making public the results of their work.  
I hope that thought never crosses your mind!  To not be able to 
benefit from your experience would be a serious loss to the entire 
printing community.

Please keep your posts and website updates coming.  They benefit 
many more people than the few who are irritated by them!

Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Claude,
> 
> >Since I still do personal work in B&W, and as a former "zoner," 
> >I can appreciate the work of Clayton, with his use of RELATIVE 
> >rating. Empirical testing of only 2 components, with a VERY 
useful 
> >conclusion. One can readily make some informed decisions about 
> >substantial paper batch investments (financial committment) from 
a 
> >guy who can "hang them on the wall,' as opposed to a meter 
reader. 
> >To that I say:  nice work.
> 
> Thank you.  It's nice to have a confirmation from someone who
> understands.  In my last posts on this issue I struggled to find 
the
> right words to describe the purpose, or need, that the review 
attempts
> to serve, and did not feel I succeeded.  It was very frustrating.  
You

> have, in a few concise sentences, nailed it perfectly.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

OK this is getting to be a very big yawn.  I made a simple statement:  that
standardised measurements allow us to communicate better and that Clayton's
valuable and extensive testing (not his photography which I couldn't care a
less about and neither would I expect him or anyone else to care about mine)
would be all the more useful if it also included objective measurements.
This isn't about quality of photography or quality of prints.  There are
many aesthetic qualities of prints which can't be measured - that's obvious
- and we will continue to struggle to describe these qualities in an
objective fashion.  In the end, a print exchange rather than a cyberspace
forum is the only way to see and then discuss some of these qualities.  And
it's not a personal attack on Clayton.  As I've said before, it's impossible
to discuss photographic skill or even print "quality" on this forum when we
can't SEE prints.  What we can discuss is the technical aspects of printing
B&W and attempt to communicate what we see in our prints in a manner which
has meaning to people who can't see them.  The more objectively we can
describe certain qualities the better. In many respects, it's not about
photography at all.  A graphical artist who has never picked up a camera but
who is printing in B&W would find this forum very useful.

BTW I just tested two new (unreleased) papers - seriously.  One of the
papers appeared slightly blacker than the other with my current QTR ink
limit and Eboni ink but the second paper seemed a bit whiter in my indoor
lighting.  They seem to have similar surface texture.  I think I can achieve
about the same tonal range as some of my other previous papers I've tested
on the second paper but the first seems a little bit better.  I guess I'll
have to reprint all those previous papers now to see as I would not want to
rely on a fuzzy recollection of papers I tested quite some time ago.  Each
seems to have performed a bit better than the canvas I tested last week.  Of
course I'm not sure what others can achieve on other papers because as we
know their visual observations are heavily subjective and so YMMV.  It would
certainly seem worthwhile getting samples of the first paper when it's
released (and when it is released I'll remind people of these test results)
but of course it may not perform better than what you're already achieving.
My images printed with the first paper looked great but then so did the same
images printed on the second paper because I like my images.  Sarcastic -
yes that's now finally a little sarcastic.  But it's also how one would be
forced to communicate without objective yardsticks.  Try discussing
exposure, a photographic subject (rather than a printing subject), without
mentioning seconds, aperture and ISO.

Ciao for now

> From: Bob Marsolais <bob@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:10:50 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Clayton and Steve
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> Thank you for the many contributions you've made to advance digital
> art printing.  I want you to know I support your test methods and
> have personally seen the quality of the results.  Nothing attests
> more to the validity of what you are doing than the result itself.
> A few months ago I purchased a 5x7 of your church interior print to
> serve as an example of what I can do if I get my processes down.
> That print is absolutely fantastic!  I was expecting something nice,
> but not that nice.
> 
> Steve has gone past the point of a respectful, intellectual
> discussion and resorted to sarcasm in an attempt to establish his
> approach as superior.  Anyone receiving that type of response to an
> honest, open statement can be discouraged and wonder whether its
> worth the risk to continue making public the results of their work.
> I hope that thought never crosses your mind!  To not be able to
> benefit from your experience would be a serious loss to the entire
> printing community.
> 
> Please keep your posts and website updates coming.  They benefit
> many more people than the few who are irritated by them!
> 
> Bob
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
> <cj@...> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Claude,
>> 
>>> Since I still do personal work in B&W, and as a former "zoner,"
>>> I can appreciate the work of Clayton, with his use of RELATIVE
>>> rating. Empirical testing of only 2 components, with a VERY
> useful 
>>> conclusion. One can readily make some informed decisions about
>>> substantial paper batch investments (financial committment) from
> a 
>>> guy who can "hang them on the wall,' as opposed to a meter
> reader. 
>>> To that I say:  nice work.
>> 
>> Thank you.  It's nice to have a confirmation from someone who
>> understands.  In my last posts on this issue I struggled to find
> the
>> right words to describe the purpose, or need, that the review
> attempts
>> to serve, and did not feel I succeeded.  It was very frustrating.
> You
>> have, in a few concise sentences, nailed it perfectly.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Clayton
>> 
>> 
>> Info on black and white digital printing at
>> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Steve Kale:  "The highest form of wisdom is kindness" 
I hope to keep that in my heart as I respond to your
posts.

It seems to me that there is a disconnect here.  You
seem to suffer from the misconception that we (in the
"Clayton camp" for lack of a better descriptor) don't
understand what you are saying.  We DO understand - we
just have different values and goals.  For our goals
and values, Clayton (and Paul and Tyler and others)
and his (their) approach has been, and continues to
be, extremely helpful. Your approach for me (dare I
say, us) is, at best, distracting - not invalid - just
an unneeded and unwanted distraction.

I don't have too much problem with your posts as I
usually just read the first line and hit <delete> -
that is until you become insulting.  One needn't
attack someone directly to be insulting. How would you
like it if I (or Clayton) invited the group to pitch
in and buy Steve Kale a heart?... Even if such things
were for sale...

And as far as a "big yawn" - this post of yours to
which I'm responding couldn't be a better example -
not only for being BORING but also for being
condescending and insulting. I do appreciate your role
as  a gad-fly in stimulating Clayton and others to so
eloquently express what is of importance for me and
many others. 

I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was
intended - that is to let you know we "hear" you and
respect your right to your opinion - we just disagree
with much of what you hold valuable.  We place higher
value on something else.  There's room enough on this
forum for a broad range of values, including yours -
but I, for one, would request that your not-so-subtle
insulting behavior stop.

Thanking you in advance, I am

Sincerely yours,

Michael Vendrell

--- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:

> OK this is getting to be a very big yawn. 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Try discussing
> exposure, a photographic subject (rather than a printing subject),
without
> mentioning seconds, aperture and ISO.

IT'S EASY... done forever by thousands of fine photographers and print
makers. I'm currently reading Edward Weston again. 

Print exchanges are valuable, but I've not seen examples of
photography or printmaking in them that begin to rival Edward
Weston's. This means specifically that the data-oriented approach
still has a long way to go.

Very well said.


Gary Brown

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Michael Vendrell" <mjvendrell2@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Clayton and Steve


> Steve Kale:  "The highest form of wisdom is kindness"
> I hope to keep that in my heart as I respond to your
> posts.
>
> It seems to me that there is a disconnect here.  You
> seem to suffer from the misconception that we (in the
> "Clayton camp" for lack of a better descriptor) don't
> understand what you are saying.  We DO understand - we
> just have different values and goals.  For our goals
> and values, Clayton (and Paul and Tyler and others)
> and his (their) approach has been, and continues to
> be, extremely helpful. Your approach for me (dare I
> say, us) is, at best, distracting - not invalid - just
> an unneeded and unwanted distraction.
>
> I don't have too much problem with your posts as I
> usually just read the first line and hit <delete> -
> that is until you become insulting.  One needn't
> attack someone directly to be insulting. How would you
> like it if I (or Clayton) invited the group to pitch
> in and buy Steve Kale a heart?... Even if such things
> were for sale...
>
> And as far as a "big yawn" - this post of yours to
> which I'm responding couldn't be a better example -
> not only for being BORING but also for being
> condescending and insulting. I do appreciate your role
> as  a gad-fly in stimulating Clayton and others to so
> eloquently express what is of importance for me and
> many others.
>
> I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was
> intended - that is to let you know we "hear" you and
> respect your right to your opinion - we just disagree
> with much of what you hold valuable.  We place higher
> value on something else.  There's room enough on this
> forum for a broad range of values, including yours -
> but I, for one, would request that your not-so-subtle
> insulting behavior stop.
>
> Thanking you in advance, I am
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Michael Vendrell
>
> --- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
>
>> OK this is getting to be a very big yawn.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
> they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
> page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner 
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files 
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO 
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN 
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE 
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) 
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>